I disagree. There is no selection taking place in your analogy. The behaviour of objects is completely depended on the laws of Physics and we can predict the behaviour of the objects by simply examining their physical structure. I fail to see how this is selection even from a non-human perceptive.

Even so, to select for Buoyancy or roundness is as you state correctly, a case of imposing a human perspective on non-human phenomena.

However, if I accept Natural Selection as you describe above, there remains a fundamental issue, the interface between Natural Selection and Random Mutation. As far as I have understood and discussed, Natural Selection and Random Mutation are exclusive of each other. Any interface between the two ultimately constitutes non-random mutations. If the two mechanisms are exclusive of each other and work independently, then perhaps the academics of evolutionary theory could explain to the world how Ã¢â‚¬ËœbothÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ mechanisms (Natural Selection and Random Mutation) are responsible for the evolution of life when the two mechanisms have no relation with each other ?

I should add that the mechanisms of evolution are under fire here, not the concept of evolution.

I think one needs to be clear that science does not do the kind of proofs that you want. One can not prove the theory of evolution or prove the theory of gravity. You can not prove that the earth is a sphere, or even prove that Australia exists.

Which also means science cannot prove creation wrong. But yet act as if it is a lie? To call what opposes your form of truth a lie, your truth would first have to meet the criteria of what actual truth would be. And since you mention that evolution is not provable, you already answered that question.

But, unlike evolution. Gravity, a sphere earth, and Australia are observable. The reason you use evolution in this comparison, is to try and make evolution part of a comparison it is not. For if the question where asked: Which of these are different in a visual sense. You know what the answer would be. The smoke and mirrors of this comparison does not work, but is often used by evolutionist to make their theory seem more plausible to those who do not know what the real comparison is. And why this one was made.

The behaviour of objects is completely depended on the laws of Physics

I couldn't agree more.

and we can predict the behaviour of the objects by simply examining their physical structure.

I'm not sure I understand why you feel that our ability to make such predictions has anything to do with it.

I fail to see how this is selection even from a non-human perceptive.

I wonder if you can see how selection could possibly exist from any perspective. Once goal-directed intent is removed, the word seems to lose much of its ordinary meaning. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than noting that different objects behave differently. Does it help any to consider that they 'select' themselves? I mean, gravity doesn't care whether an object rolls downhill or not; it doesn't 'see' objects, only atoms. If an object is flat, the action of gravity will increase friction, thereby helping to hold it on a slope (up to a certain angle of elevation).

A religious person, adrift at sea in a small boat, might appeal to his diety of choice to provide wind to drive his sails. It probably wouldn't even occur to him to pray to the wind directly, as if it were an entity itself, but for a believer in what is surely the most ancient form of superstition -- animism -- it certainly would. It's not as crazy as it seems. It's simply a product of intuition.

The mysterious cognitive process that results in what we refer to as "intuition" often produces surprisingly good results, and it's fast. It has to be fast. In a dangerous world, there often isn't time to work things out in detail. If the rustling of some leaves is caused by a puff of wind, the deer that panics and takes flight pays the price of a few lost calories; if it was caused by a stalking lion, the deer that waits for confirmation that the danger is real may pay with his life. In this instance, what our intuition tells us is something like: "If it looks like it might be capable of acting with purposeful intent, treat it as such". The aggregate cost of all the false positives will be far less than the potential cost of a single failure to recognize intent where it actually exists.

Not only that, but even when it is a mistake to ascribe intent, the convenience of using the idea as a conceptual handle may not suffer much from its flaws; the operator of a complex machine may describe nuances of its behavior in an animistic sense; he may give the machine a name, and frame his descriptions of variations in its behavior in terms of emotions which, if pressed, he would readily admit to not actually believing that the machine is capable of.

With regard to selection, our intuitive notions appear to be quite strong, and difficult to override. And with selection, we rapidly reach a point where 'adopting the intentional stance' does begin to suffer from its flaws.

However, if I accept Natural Selection as you describe above, there remains a fundamental issue, the interface between Natural Selection and Random Mutation. As far as I have understood and discussed, Natural Selection and Random Mutation are exclusive of each other. Any interface between the two ultimately constitutes non-random mutations. If the two mechanisms are exclusive of each other and work independently, then perhaps the academics of evolutionary theory could explain to the world how ‘both’ mechanisms (Natural Selection and Random Mutation) are responsible for the evolution of life when the two mechanisms have no relation with each other?

This is word salad. We could similarly note that the energy of an impact is the result of an 'interface' between two independent properties: speed and mass. What's the problem again?

I should add that the mechanisms of evolution are under fire here, not the concept of evolution.

I disagree. I would say that it is exactly the opposite. Creationists (for the most part) do not deny that either mutation or selection exists; they merely arrive at different conclusions as to the nature and the degree of the changes those mechanisms are capable of producing.

I'm not sure I understand why you feel that our ability to make such predictions has anything to do with it.

This is my mistake I should have been clearer although I have now forgotten the point I was going to make. If I remember IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll post it again.

I wonder if you can see how selection could possibly exist from any perspective. Once goal-directed intent is removed, the word seems to lose much of its ordinary meaning.

But thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the problem. Selection requires an objective (human or non-human perspective), buoyancy or roundness as examples.

This is word salad. We could similarly note that the energy of an impact is the result of an 'interface' between two independent properties: speed and mass. What's the problem again?

An interface demonstrates a relationship. Indeed, speed and mass are independent properties, but both properties work in relation to each other when calculating the energy of an impact. The Energy-Momentum Formula is a good example. If we alter the values of speed and mass, both independent, the outcome will have a calculated effect. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a relationship.However, in the case of Natural Selection and Random Mutation, the moment a relationship is established, random mutations are no longer random by definition. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the problem.

I disagree. I would say that it is exactly the opposite. Creationists (for the most part) do not deny that either mutation or selection exists; they merely arrive at different conclusions as to the nature and the degree of the changes those mechanisms are capable of producing.

Evolution is not true, because there is no evidence that can prove it.Reason being, you can't prove something to be true when it isn't.

As far as the complexity of our DNA goes, there enough cells in our DNA to circle the moon 13 times, this has been proven by modern science, thats a pretty complex design.

In addition to that, evolution is not science, its at best a hypothesis.Real science is operational science, things that have been tested/observed and proven 100% to be fact.

This is not the case with evolution, it remains to be held onto and believed by faith without any scientific proof what so ever, thus, making it a religion, an anti-god religion.

Some evolutionists now reject the big bang theory, because they themselves saw that it was just to rediculous to hold onto, you can't say, in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded!Thats just a rediculous notion.

Some evolutionists are conflicted with the innate knowledge they have of God, and their want to rebel thats caused by their sinful nature, and they claim there is a god, who created evolution.

Its sad that the whole notion of evolution ever got this big, and widely spread, because its completely false, But it had to happen, or else Romans 1:20 through 24 would not have been true.